We are a grass roots organization located in both Israel and the United States. Our intention is to be pro-active on behalf of Israel. This means we will identify the topics that need examination, analysis and promotion. Our intention is to write accurately what is going on here in Israel rather than react to the anti-Israel media pieces that comprise most of today's media outlets.

Sunday, June 08, 2014

The biggest problem with the controversial group isn’t its bullying,
mischaracterization of opponents, outrageous lobbying positions, or
childish huffing and puffing. It’s their implicit rejection of
everything Zionism stands for.

Why does the Zionist movement still exist, while the Women’s Suffrage movement has been gone for nearly a century?

Both
movements were founded and led by utopian visionaries whose dreams were
initially decried—both inside and outside their circles—as unrealistic,
if not dangerous to their group’s well-being. Both based their claims
on liberalism, dignity, and human rights. And, most importantly, both
movements succeeded in their goals. The Jewish people now have a
sovereign state of their own, while women have the right to vote in
almost every country on earth.

It
seems, then, that the questions of women’s right to vote and the Jewish
people’s right to a state are both answered. The debates ought to be
over. No one would seriously suggest that after nearly a century, women
should now be disenfranchised. Similarly, the 66-year existence of a
Jewish state is an immutable and irreversible fact, and no mainstream
figure is arguing for its abolition. So why, and why now, is the
American Jewish community undergoing such a storm of conflict and
recrimination over the issue of Israel?

This
internal conflict is occurring on three different levels. The first
level relates to policy: What steps should Israel take in order to live
in peace with its neighbors? This conflict is largely over, or at least
overdone: There is now a consensus among American Jews that the Oslo
paradigm of two states with a shared capital and border swaps remains
the “best worst option” to end the conflict, but since by now everyone
knows everyone else’s claims and counter-claims, these debates have
become stale.

The
second is a meta-conflict, an argument about arguing: When is it
acceptable to publicly criticize Israel? Should we allow political
adversaries the opportunity to use Jewish forums to promote ideas that
are anathema to the majority of the community? In a world with over one
billion anti-Semites, as an Anti-Defamation League poll just
claimed, how should American Jews balance their support for the ideal
of the Jewish state with their distaste for many of the current Israeli
government’s policies?

The third conflict, however, has only begun to take shape. It may never
reach the vituperative heights of the first two, because engaging on
this level means opening the door to a barrage of questions that many
American Jews don’t want to contemplate: Do Jews in the Diaspora have
the right to
influence Israeli policies? It’s one thing to complain about Israel’s
lack of recognition for non-Orthodox streams of Judaism or the
ignominies of the Occupation. Everyone has the right to complain, Jews
most of all. But do non-Israeli Jews have the right to actively attempt
to undermine and circumvent Israel’s democratic process and policy
choices from afar?

Which
brings us to J Street, the group most responsible for forcing these
issues, especially following its rejected bid for membership in the
Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations in
April. J Street was founded in 2008 by the far-Left Israeli activist
Daniel Levy and Jeremy Ben-Ami, a former Clinton White House operative,
who felt that America’s traditional “pro-Israel” organizations were too
right-wing and didn’t represent the “silent majority” of American Jews.
Ben-Ami’s grandparents were Zionist heroes, fleeing the anti-Semitism of
Russia to become founders of Tel Aviv. His father followed in their
Zionist tradition, a leader in the movement to establish the first
independent Jewish state in 2,000 years. Reflecting on his father, and
betraying his own views, Ben-Ami blithely says, “He was a terrorist.”

In
the years since its founding, J Street’s visibility has grown
exponentially through its political action committee, lobbying efforts,
and grassroots mobilization campaigns, especially on college campuses.

According to its website,
J Street says it believes that “Israel’s Jewish and democratic
character depend on a two-state solution, resulting in a Palestinian
state living alongside Israel in peace and security,” and is working to
create what Secretary of State John Kerry called a “great constituency
for peace” that will give political cover to the Obama administration as
it pursues a long-sought peace accord between Israelis and
Palestinians. It calls itself “the political home for pro-Israel,
pro-peace Americans”—effectively accusing anyone outside its circle of
being either anti-Israel or anti-peace.

The
real problem with J Street, though, has less to do with its specific
political positions, or the identities of its funders, or its
disturbing willingness to give forums to those who would be happy with
Israel’s destruction. The problem is what J Street represents: The idea
that American Jews have the right and the responsibility to “fix” Israel
when it is perceived to have erred—to impose their ideas in
contradiction to Israeli self-determination. This idea weakens Israel,
weakens the American Jewish community, and—most problematically—contains
at its heart an implicit repudiation of Zionism itself.

Although
its meaning has evolved over time, today being a Zionist—a believer in
and supporter of the national aspirations of the Jewish people—means
accepting four assumptions: that the Jewish people are a unique nation,
like Italians or Egyptians (something the early Reform rabbis rejected);
that nations have the right to self-determination in a sovereign
nation-state of their own; that the Jewish nation-state ought to be in
Israel, the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people, rather than Uganda
or Argentina; and that the right to self-determination, and the
resulting freedom from Gentile majoritarianism, is especially important
for the Jewish people, due to the twin threats of violent persecution
and benign assimilation that have imperiled Jewish survival and
continuity in the Diaspora for millennia.

Many Israelis would add one more assumption: Being a Zionist means working towards what even the secular David Ben-Gurion called the
“messianic vision” of mass Jewish immigration to Israel. To Ben-Gurion,
the ingathering of the exiles, a fulfillment of the traditional Seder
promise of “next year in Jerusalem,” was “the central mission of our
state.” The question of whether Jewish life can (and ought to) survive
in the Diaspora is an especially complicated one now that the Jewish
state has become a reality. One camp is represented by the Israeli
author A.B. Yehoshua, who delights in trolling American Jewish audiences
by proclaiming that Diaspora Jews are only “partial Jews” whose
identities are akin to “a fancy spice box that is only opened to release
its pleasing fragrance on Shabbat and holidays.” In Israel, he says,
“our values are Jewish values, because we live here. It’s not what the
rabbis say that defines Jewishness, but what we Israelis do every
day—our actions and our values.”

Most committed Diaspora Jews could come up with many reasons why they
stay as minorities in non-Jewish countries even though the long-term
demographic projections are so demonstrably against them: A sense of
loyalty to the country of their birth; personal and financial comfort in
their current location; the difficulties of moving, finding employment,
and learning a new language; fears for their safety in a war-torn
region. But the most compelling case was penned by the Reconstructionist
Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan in 1948, as the Jewish state was coming into
fruition.

As Jews, the very best we have to give is to be found in Judaism, the
distillation of centuries of Jewish spiritual experience. As convinced
Jews and loyal Americans, we should seek to incorporate in American life
the universal values of Judaism, and to utilize the particular sancta
of Jewish religion as an inspiration for preserving these universal
values. To fail to do so would mean to deprive Judaism of universal
significance and to render Jewish religion a mere tribalism that has no
relevance to life beyond the separate interests of the Jewish group.

Though
Kaplan forcefully argued that Judaism could be made more meaningful by
living and practicing it outside the Jewish state, it’s hard to deny
that in the present day, American Jewish culture and self-perception is
highly centered on… Israel. According to the Pew Survey of American Jewry,
87 percent of American Jews say that caring about Israel is essential
or important to what being Jewish means to them; 69 percent feel an
emotional attachment to Israel. Israel-related organizations receive
more in contributions than any other sector of the American Jewish
nonprofit world, taking in $1.4 billion every
year, more than twice as much as Jewish educational organizations. The
great Zionist thinker Ahad Ha’am was pessimistic about the prospects of a
Jewish state in Palestine, but he was right (almost too right) in one
respect: The establishment of Israel strengthened and revitalized Jewish
life in the Diaspora, as Jews took pride in the achievements of the
early Zionist pioneers, the IDF, and the whiz-kids of the Start-Up
Nation. But this revitalization has been almost solely in the “Israel
sphere.” Since the last of the Soviet refuseniks were freed, American
Jews have largely spent their psychic energy, and their dollars, on
developing new ways to look eastward (towards Israel) or backward
(towards the Holocaust—the most common and important touchstone of American Jewish identity).

Unlike
the Holocaust, however, “Israel” is not a unitary idea, a discrete
entity with agreed-upon borders. Like all other countries, Israel is
imperfect, ever-changing, and incomplete—they’ll get around to writing
their constitution someday, they promise. But unlike Ireland or Mexico
or any other country with a significant diaspora, Israel needs to be
perfect, or at least live up to the expectations of those who care for
it, in order for Diaspora Jews themselves to be able to legitimize their
identities. American Jews despair whenever the Jewish state fails to
live up to what they see as “Jewish values,” but as the entire length
and breadth of our disputatious history shows us, no two Jews can agree
on what exactly Jewish values are and aren’t.

Nonetheless, when this dilemma occurs, when Israel makes the “wrong
decision,” American Jews have three choices. The first option is to
accept the messiness of geopolitics, and give the people of Israel the
benefit of the doubt that their government will find the right path in a
tough neighborhood and a world of moral complexity. The second is to
grow jaded and disillusioned with Israel, and because Israel is so
wrapped up in American Jewish identity, many who do become jaded and
disillusioned with Judaism itself.

But
rather than hope for the best or wallow in loathing, some American Jews
choose a third path, preferring to take actions into their own hands.
Citing Hillel the Elder’s famous dictum, “If not now, when?” they want
to repair our broken world by repairing Israel, spurring changes in
Israeli policy by, for example, pressuring the United States government
to pressure Israel by threatening its financial aid, or urging the White House not to veto one-sided, anti-Israel resolutions in the UN Security Council.

The
problem with this prescriptive approach, however, is that it forgets
another part of Hillel’s saying: “If I am only for myself, what am I?”
This group, in its wisdom, believes it knows what is best for Israel,
and going beyond mere verbal criticism, actively works to mold Israel in
its own image for its own emotional benefit. It is in this group that J
Street finds itself.

Choosing not to make aliyah,
to remain in the Diaspora, is a wholly legitimate choice—one that I,
like many, have made. But in doing so, Jews waive the right to claim
that Israel has “failed them” by acting in a certain manner. Israel, as a
sovereign nation, is only obligated to be responsible and responsive to
its own citizens. When Diaspora Jews fail to claim that citizenship
when it is freely offered to them under the Law of Return, they waive
the right to demand that Israel act in their name and meet their
standards.

J
Street’s underlying principles weaken Israel, weaken the American
Jewish community, and contain at their heart an implicit repudiation of
Zionism itself.

To
be fair, Israeli leaders past and present have made this argument more
complicated. The Israeli government helps protect Jewish communities
abroad; Israeli prime ministers rely on American Jewish munificence and
political support; they sometimes speak as if they were anointed King of
the Jews. And of course, anybody has the right to criticize any other
country’s actions or policies. This criticism can also be justified by
appeals to Jewish tradition—reflected, for example, in the Jewish
community’s tremendous mobilization against the genocide in Darfur. But
when it comes to Israel, a Jewish identity alone should not and does not
give you the right to a seat at the negotiating table—only the right to
a plane ticket to the table. Diaspora Jews don’t pay Israeli taxes,
don’t serve in the Israeli army, don’t send their children to Israeli
schools, don’t have to put up with Israeli bureaucracy, don’t risk their
lives driving on Israeli roads alongside hyperaggressive Israeli
drivers—why should they get a vote in Israeli elections, or otherwise be
allowed to influence Israeli choices? A common argument is that
American Jews ought to have a say in Israeli policies because of the
billions of dollars of American aid that Israel receives every year. But
as former ambassador Michael Oren pointed out in anexchange published in Foreign Policy,
“Americans expect no such probity from the Gulf countries, Turkey, and
South Korea, which receive vastly more military support from the United
States than does Israel.”

Arguing
that Israel is making the wrong choices with regard to, for example,
its settlement policy is a perfectly acceptable and rational part of the
political discourse, both in the Jewish community and the American
conversation at large. But for a non-Israeli citizen to claim the right
to have a say in Israeli policy decisions, to game the American
political system so as to pressure Israel into making a specific choice
that the Israeli citizenry, in the form of its duly elected government,
does not wish to make, is to deny Israelis the right to shape their
state as they best see fit. It is arrogant and anti-democratic. It may
well be a legitimate form of activism as an American citizen exercising
free speech; but it must be simultaneously conceded that it negates the
belief in Israel’s right to self-determination—which is the whole point
of the Zionist enterprise.

It is, in other words, a form of anti-Zionism. And it is exactly what J Street does.

J
Street says that a primary goal is opening up new channels of dialogue
for the benefit of the American Jewish community, but its real raison d’etreis
leveraging American political power to influence Israeli policy in a
specific direction. It’s one thing to say that the discourse on Israel
in the American Jewish community is stifled: As Rachel Lerner, J
Street’s Senior Vice President for Community Relations, wrote in an op-ed for
the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, “A more robust and pluralistic
discussion in our community about Israel” is needed. But it’s quite
another to say, as Lerner repeatedly does in her op-ed, that this
conversation ought to include the question “What kind of Israel do you
want?”

In J Street executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami’s recent op-ed in the Times of Israel, he says,

The wrongs [the Palestinians] have committed don’t give Israel a pass
from choosing either to give up some of that land to create a separate
national homeland for the Palestinian people or to sacrifice either the
democratic or Jewish character of the state. At the end of the day,
American Jews who care about Israel owe it to ourselves, our people and
our history to have an open and honest discussion about that choice and the role we should play in how that choice is made. [Emphasis added]

And
what does J Street do in order to influence how a sovereign foreign
nation makes “that choice”? It donates money to American political
candidates. J Street’s political action committee, JStreetPAC, has
contributed millions of dollars to members of Congress and congressional
candidates, hoping that once elected, they will use their—and thus
America’s—leverage to influence Israeli domestic and foreign policy (as
opposed to AIPAC, which is an organization of American citizens
attempting to influence Americanpolicy with regard to Israel and the Middle East). Ben-Ami was much more open about this in an interview with Newsweek in 2008:

The United States clearly has a lot of influence on Israel because of
the nature of the relationship and if you’re really serious about
stopping the settlements and about what American policy is – American
policy says no more settlements, no more expansion and take down those
outposts – if we’re serious about it, then we need to start to act
serious. And it’s time to act like the big brother or the parent and to
say “enough is enough and we’re going to take the car keys if you don’t
stop driving drunk.” We’re not talking about simply business as usual.
There’s got to be some sort of intervention here where the U.S. says to
Israel the time has come to finally do something.

Fast-forward
to 2014, when Ben-Ami stated in the Times of Israel that “a
quintessential characteristic of Zionism from its earliest days [has
been] the need for the Jewish people to control their own destiny and
not depend on others for our rights and freedom.” In other words, Jewish
self-determination is the essence of Zionism, except when that
self-determination leads to decisions that Ben-Ami disagrees with, at
which point he and his followers, with an almost neocolonial sense of
paternalism, will support American politicians who will punish Israel
for its perceived errors.

It’s
much easier to claim to know better when you don’t have to live with
the negative consequences of a wrong choice. This conundrum has often
puzzled J Street and its allies. Peter Beinart, whom Ben-Ami once hailed
as “the troubadour of our movement,” was mystified when his bookThe Crisis of Zionism did
not receive the flattering reviews he anticipated. As the political
commentator Jeffrey Goldberg said to the reporter Jason Zengerle in
Zengerle’s profile of Beinart for New York magazine:

Peter asked me why I dismissed his book but gave a very positive review to Gershom Gorenberg’s book… And I thought to myself, Do you really have to ask? One of you has skin in the game.
If Gershom Gorenberg [an Israeli Leftist] is wrong, then his family
might die. If Peter Beinart is wrong, well, Manhattan will survive.
[Emphasis original]

The
global consensus—in Israel, in the U.S. (both inside and outside the
Jewish community), basically everywhere on Earth but the Arab world and
certain American liberal arts colleges—is that the two-state solution is
the best chance for a long-term peace between Israelis and
Palestinians. There is a similar consensus over the five issues that are
preventing such an agreement—refugees, borders, security, the status of
Jerusalem, and mutual distrust. Knowing these challenges, as J Street’s
leadership surely does, it takes a bit of chutzpah to say that Israel
ought to simply “do something” in the pursuit of peace. It takes a lot
of chutzpah to provide specifics on what exactly Israel should do. But
it’s the height of chutzpah to make such demands from the comfort of a
secure foreign country, without the risk of suffering from any potential
negative ramifications of “doing something.”

It
is also disturbing to consider that while J Street may be presenting
itself as an organization representing the “silent majority” of the
Jewish community, in fact it may be something entirely different.

This is strongly suggested in a remarkable video,
originally made public by the organization itself before being quickly
removed from YouTube. Asked by a local J Street activist in a private J
Street training session how to handle the fact that much of J Street’s
local support comes from outside the
Jewish community, therefore potentially undermining their claim to
represent the real opinions of the Jewish community, Carinne Luck, J
Street’s former Chief of Staff and Vice President for Field and
Campaigns, offered a surprising answer:

Man: We
have some support and interest in the Jewish community. We get much
more support outside the traditional Jewish community. We know that for
political reasons we have to be sensitive to the composition of the
leadership. Can you address this very uncomfortable question?Luck: Is this Jewish/non-Jewish? Is that the question you were going to ask?Man: Yes.Luck: Our
theory of change and the one we’ve been told as what people on the Hill
and in the administration, what they are looking to from us. It is very
specific. And we are a primarily Jewish but not exclusively Jewish
organization and they want us to see us primarily moving Jews. American
Jews. And so that is where the bulk of our resources go…I think for us
building power is “how do we build power in our own community?”…Even in
our small Jewish community they are still looking to us to give them
cover….But that is why for our leadership, you know we want our
leadership to be comfortable going in and meeting with someone saying
“as an American Jew I do this” and if that’s inauthentic, you know, I
mean look I would never tell someone to lie. If they choose to, that’s
their business….

Luck’s
circumlocutions notwithstanding, she seems to be suggesting that the
essence of J Street is not so much to represent the existing, if silent,
feelings of the majority of the Jewish community. Rather, it is to
“move” that community toward a certain set of opinions—opinions
which certain influential people “on the Hill and in the
administration” seem to really want pushed. And while she would never
advise someone to falsely claim they represent the Jewish community if
they do not feel comfortable doing so, “If they choose to, that’s their
business.”

Again,
there is nothing wrong with American citizens organizing to change the
opinions of one group or another. But if your “theory of change”
involves taking direction from Washington in order to change Jewish
public opinion about the Middle East, can you still claim to represent
Jewish communal opinion at all? Can you still claim to stand for Jewish
sovereign self-determination in the Jewish state?

The
great Hebrew poet Chaim Nachman Bialik is said to have once written
that Israel “will be a normal state when we have the first Hebrew
prostitute, the first Hebrew thief, and the first Hebrew policeman.” By
that measure, Israel is more than a normal state: With a former
president in jail for rape and a former prime minister in jail for
corruption, it may be the most normal state in the world. But some in
the Diaspora cannot countenance prostitutes, thieves, or settlers.

Whether they realize it or not, many American Jews are undermining
Zionism by putting political processes in place that pressure Israeli
citizens and the Israeli government to act in a certain way, thus
implicitly disdaining Israel’s right to self-determination. This
includes Americans who lobby Congress to pressure Israel to act the way
they see fit; who give money to nonprofits that (by themselves or
through proxies) lobby the Israeli government directly; or who fund
outrageously partisan Israeli newspapers.

Just
as importantly, though, all of the money and energy that these American
Jews spend on shaping Israel in their own image is money and energy
that isn’t being spent on truly revitalizing the American Jewish
community. American Jewish life isn’t dead, as some are saying; but in the words of the famous Jewish sage Miracle Max,
it is “mostly dead.” But with a little nudge and a bit of money,
however, it could be on the rebound. The innovative future of Jewish
life in America can be found in the pages ofTablet and at Moishe House events
across the country. Imagine how much more effective these and similar
endeavors would be if the energy spent fighting wars over Israel were
instead spent on ways to replicate these successes.

Israel
will always be an important part of the American Jewish identity, as it
should be. But the sooner American Jews become less obsessed over what
Israel could be, and accept it for what it is—the culmination of a dream
shared in the abstract but contentious when it comes to specifics; an
imperfect state, but a sovereign state nonetheless; a state that will
accept help when it needs it, but has long since earned the right to
make its own choices in pursuit of prosperity, peace and security—the
sooner this happens, the sooner we can focus on meeting our own
existential challenges.

Caroline Glick & Mark Levin: The Israeli Solution -- A One-State Pla

Why Israel Opposes International Forces in the Jordan Valley

U.S. scholars' group votes in favor of academic boycott of Israel

Yet another indication of the absolute corruption of American academia today. "US scholars' group votes in favor of academic boycott of Israel," from the Jerusalem Post, December 16: NEW YORK – The 5,000-member American Studies Association (ASA), which describes itself as “the nation’s oldest and largest association devoted to...http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/12/us-scholars-group-votes-in-favor-of-academic-boycott-of-israel.html

Israel Living Prophecy

A senior New Israel Fund officer told a U.S. official in 2010 that the disappearance of the Jewish state would not be a tragedy, according to a document that was leaked by Wikileaks...She commented that she believed that in 100 years Israel would be majority Arab and that the disappearance of a Jewish state would not be the tragedy that Israelis fear since it would become more democratic.

Mideast expert Michael Widlanski: Fatah is a joke

US-Israeli talks focus on Ahmadinejad's possible ouster

How to exploit the deep cracks forming in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's administration for removing the Iranian president was a top item on the agenda of the high-level talks between Barack Obama's advisers and Israeli officials at Mossad headquarters in Herzliya, north of Tel Aviv, Wednesday, July 29.

DEBKAfile's Iranian sources report that Ahmadinejad's cabinet is falling apart; of his original lineup of 21 ministers, only nine remain at their posts.

The Identity Of The Land

Why the Palestinians need to recognize the Jewish State

We do NOT support a 2-state solution

A January 2009 poll found that Americans oppose creating a Palestinian state by 45-31 percent. A February 2009 Maagar Mohot Survey Institute poll has also shown that Israelis oppose creating a Palestinian state by 51-32 percent.

Many other polls tell a similar story.

These figures suggest that Americans and Israelis have understood that creating a Palestinian state under current conditions will not bring peace but merely another terror state.

Netanya,Israel

Jerusalem At Night

Why reconstruct Gaza without making demands

- that Shalit be release without convicted terrorists being released by Israel in exchange,

- that the US be put in charge of the southern border to ensure that Hamas isn’t rearmed?

- that their three preconditions be accepted by Hamas, i.e. agree to all former agreements,recognize Israel and renounce terror

- that Hamas amend their Charter

- That Hamas disconnect from Iran

The answer is that they don’t want to.

Children of Hamas

Picture of Hamas children the media does not show you

IDF: Civilian Deaths in Gaza Less than 25% of Total

A maximum of 25% of the Palestinians killed in Gaza since the beginning of the Israeli operation are innocent civilians, the head of the IDF's Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration (CLA), Col. Moshe Levi, said Wednesday. According to Palestinian medical officials, Israel has killed some 1,000 Palestinians and more than half of them are civilians. Levi said the CLA had compiled a list with the names of 900 Palestinians killed during the fighting. He said that 150 names were of women, children and elderly, and that the maximum number of civilians killed so far was 250. Levi also dismissed claims that 43 Palestinians were killed in an IDF attack on a Hamas terror cell that was firing mortars at Israeli forces from within an UNRWA school in Jabalya. Levi said 21 Palestinians were killed in the attack, including a number of Hamas operatives. (Jerusalem Post)

Hamas teaching the children of Gaza

An Iranian reformist daily newspaper has criticized Hamas "for risking lives of civilians, amongst them children, by hiding its forces in nurseries and hospitals." This is reported in today's Palestinian daily Al-Ayyam. The Palestinian daily adds that in response the Iranian government has closed the newspaper.

"The Iranian news agency "Irna" reported yesterday, that the Iranian Culture Ministry has closed the reformist daily newspaper "Karjo Zaran", because it published a report that included criticism of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas). On December 30 the paper published a statement of a reformist student organization, that has criticized Hamas for risking lives of civilians, amongst them children, by hiding its forces in nurseries and hospitals. The statement was published whilst the Iranian government expresses a unified stands against Israel, and Tehran is overwhelmed by demonstrations against Israel."

[Al-Ayyam, Jan. 1, 2009] Thanks PMW

Iran-backed Hamas Rocket, Mortar Attacks and Nuclear Developments

9,400+ rockets and mortars fired from Gaza since 2003. [1]3,200+ rockets and mortars fired from Gaza in 2008 alone. [2]6,500+ rockets and mortars fired from Gaza since Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. [3]543+ rockets and mortars fired from Gaza into Israeli territory during the ceasefire from June 19 to Dec. 19, 2008. [4]28 deaths caused by rockets and mortars fired from Gaza into Israel since 2001. The dead include Israelis, Palestinians and foreign workers. Since the ceasefire ended, Iran-backed Palestinian groups in Gaza fired rockets and mortars that killed an Israeli-Arab construction worker and a mother of four who was seeking shelter in a bus station as a rocket warning siren sounded. [5]1,000+ people in Israel injured from rockets and mortars fired from Gaza since 2001, including Israelis, Palestinians and foreign workers. Since the ceasefire, 44 Israelis have been injured and 200 have been treated for shock. [6]Thanks Israel Project

It began with this...

The British Foreign Office, November 2nd, 1917Dear Lord Rothschild,I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate theachievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities inPalestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.2

Signed,Arthur James Balfour[Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs]

Favorite Books

While Europe Slept

About Me

Semi-retired Professor, now also permanent resident of Israel;divides time between both countries-serves on several Boards of Directors for Israel advocacy groups;Chana, resident of Jerusalem, JCPA member

Syria is an Occupier-Are You Listening World?

As of this minute, Syria occupies at least 177 square miles of Lebanese soil. That you are now reading about it for the first time is as much a scandal as the occupation itself.

The news comes by way of a fact-finding survey of the Lebanese-Syrian border just produced by the International Lebanese Committee for UN Security Council Resolution 1559, an American NGO that has consultative status with the UN. In meticulous detail - supplemented by photographs and satellite images - the authors describe precisely where and how Lebanon has been infiltrated.

Though the land grabs are small affairs individually, they collectively add up to an area amounting to about 4% of Lebanese soil - in U.S. terms, the proportional equivalent of Arizona. Of particular note is that the area of Syrian conquest dwarves that of the Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms which amount to an area of about 12 square miles.

It would be nice to see the Arab world protest this case of illegal occupation, given its passions about the subject.

Information worth Possessing

"Israel gave the Palestinians an autonomy in 42% of the West Bank and Gaza after the Oslo accords in the early 90's. Over 92% of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza were then under the administration of the Palestinian Authority and its Chairman Yasser Arafat.

"Israel is surrounded by 10 hostile Arab countries who do not even recognize its right to exist ( Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Algeria, Lybia, Morocco, Tunisia, Aden) and Iran"